Much of what you say is relevant. I feel that the number on difference would be that with Clinton - at least the White House would be in the hands of a sane, capable and experienced person who respects government and their role in it.
And right now I would settle for that.
LOL. That may be true. But with the polarization of this nation, the hyper partisanship, especially those in Washington, how much of a difference would that make? You would feel better, but for everyone who would feel better with Hillary as president, you have on who feels better with Trump in that position. Until both parties realize that the other party isn't the number one enemy of the United States, it's not going to matter much who wins the presidency. When both parties view the other as the biggest threat to our national security, future of this nation, more than North Korea, Iran, Russia, the Debt, ISIS, AQ, you name it, our future is dim indeed.
What happened? What caused this? More important what can be done to fix it? Changing presidents isn't about too.
And how is he doing that, stock market almost 23000, record employment, record labor force, pre recession U-6, lower debt? Post the data that proves your claim?
What has been implemented since Trump took office that would have affected these results?
Its not a given. If they had anything on Trump it would of been leaked by now. Your prediction sounds like wishful thinking to me.What? I dont believe Trump will get that chance. Mueller will slap Trump with obstruction, that much is a given as he admitted it to Lester Holt. So no, Donny will not be replacing 4 more SC justices.
Quarterly GDP means absolutely nothing as our GDP, debt and other financial results are yearly and that is what matters including debt service. I gave you the location of all the data you need to educate your self, teach yourself so you don't continue to show how you have been duped by the media.
2017 isn't over but off to a much better start than anything Obama had, check out U-6 rate, Discouraged workers, part time for economic reasons, then go to Treasury and find out what the debt is today?
Interpret? It was live. He looked at the sun. Not for long, mind, but it's not a matter of interpretation.
He turned his head up in the same direction as others with glasses on when he wasn't wearing any about three or four different times that both me and my sister each saw with our own two eyes and I shall choose to believe my own eyes instead of alternative facts to make my interpretation.
Give it up, is there some genetic defect with trump supporters that they can't admit when he does something stupid?
I glanced several times in the direction of the sun during the eclipse too. But I didn't look directly at the sun. And I'm pretty darn sure neither the President or the First Lady did either when they took their protective glasses off. But without knowing one way or the other, that didn't stop an irresponsible and dishonest media and the haters who believe everything they report from saying unequivocably that it happened.
Versus Trumpbots who refuse to believe ANYTHING negative about Trump. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black there. No, there was no misinterpretation, but the its good to know some Trumpbots have shown their leashes owned by their messiah Trump. Trumpbots have proven to be suck-up worthless idiots. Oh wait, that would be insulting idiots.
I came to this forum for some friendly discussion, some good debate, some good hearty argument and a good fight now and then...to learn...to share knowledge etcetera
I'm not an economist so when I see someone such as yourself taking the position you have on the economy I figured I might get a chance for understanding.
What I've received so far are your preconceived notions of me because I dared to inquire, links to home pages that lead me in all directions and your unsubstantiated claims that I view as your opinions until you present something on this Debate Politics forum.
If you want the opportunity to convince me then let's get down to reality and present something.
If you can't be bothered, fine, I'll move along.
Cheers
Versus Trumpbots who refuse to believe ANYTHING negative about Trump. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black there. No, there was no misinterpretation, but the its good to know some Trumpbots have shown their leashes owned by their messiah Trump. Trumpbots have proven to be suck-up worthless idiots. Oh wait, that would be insulting idiots.
Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post something like that? Can't you see that you just affirmed what I said?
Negative about Trump are opinions and media reports based upon rhetoric totally ignoring the facts and it is the facts that matter, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Treasury show economic results and actions around the world show foreign policy results. You buy what the media tells you because that is what you want to believe. I couldn't care less what he says but do care about the actual results generated
The reversal of Anti business EO's that Obama signed
as well as a pro business attitude and direction promoted by Trump. Businesses know that tax cuts are coming
ACA taxes and EPA regulations addressed
and businesses are reacting just like they reacted to the Trump meeting with Business and Labor leaders.
Woody Allen once said 90% of life is just showing up. Lets take that an apply it to the White House - 90% of being President is just being sane.
And we don't have that today.
Gerrymandering helped cause this creating far too many "safe" districts which are non competitive. We must get rid of that. We need balanced House districts which are truly competitive and the middle controls the winner not the extremes on the outer margins.
That is what we need ASAP.
I totally agree on the need to end gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is nothing more than jury rigging an election. It is a form where these congress critters choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their congressmen.
Now I agree that Trump isn't the ideal president. But I am one of those third party voters last year who thought both major party candidates were insane choices. Neither Trump or Clinton were sane. At least sane enough to be installed in the Oval Office. You have to remember, as bad as Trump is today, back in November the voters view Hillary just as bad as Trump. Many, holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils or the least horrible candidate. Then there were the 6% of us who refused to choose between evil one and evil two.
would I change my vote from November today. No, I wouldn't. I voted against Trump, he won. I also voted against Clinton, she lost. So in a way I was one for two. I don't care for Trump and if the choice was replacing him with Clinton, I'd just as soon stick with the evil we have. How many other third party voters feel that way is unknown.
Choice and decisions has consequences and the choices and decisions made last year by the two major parties certainly has had dire consequences.
I respect your opinion and your right to it but I disagree 100% about Clinton not being sane.
There is and was no comparison. Clinton might be a stinking one foot while pile of manure while Trump always was a verifiable mountain of the stuff.
LOL, that's the way it is. Each individual is different and view the world through a different set of eyes. Perhaps we should have stuck with the devil we knew, Hillary against the new comer, the unknown, the devil we didn't? I don't know, to me they were equally bad choices. What I can't understand, then again I guess it was pre-ordained. 56% of all Americans, that is all Americans and not just Democrats wanted the Democratic Party to nominate someone else other than Clinton. That was taken in February of 2016, Rasmussen I believe. Of course all Americans do not decide the Democratic nominee, Democrats do.
So why would the Democrats nominate someone as disliked by America as a whole as Trump? There prerogative for sure, but why? There was an article that in a meeting between Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton prior to the 2012 election that those three decided Hillary would be the Democrats 2016 nominee, my pre-ordained comment. Seems very likely as when the year turned to 2013, Hillary already had the pledge of 13 super delegates, she had over 300 at the beginning of 2013 long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat. Sanders ended up with just 48 of the super delegates out of 712. It does seem to me that the DNC and the Democratic state party leaders did rig the primaries in Hillary's favor.
Obama made 'secret deal to support Hillary Clinton's 2016 run in exchange for Bill's support during re-election campaign' | Daily Mail Online
Knowing the above or at least suspecting, perhaps that is why a Jim Webb never campaigned and Warren was talked out of running.
If it was in private McConnell has doubts, why do we now all know about them?
I think Clinton was pre-ordained by the party and that is why the Southern primaries with their disproportionate number of African American voters were front loaded to give her the big start out of the gate. And those super delegates you wisely mentioned were the icing on the cake for her.
I was a delegate in 1972 for McGovern and there were NO super delegates then. Everybody had to get elected at the congressional district meeting - and that included public office holders and party officials.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?